so what do you consider high resolution gaming?

JacobC1983 said:
just to change the idea on this thread.. HD at first was considered (in the video world) to be 720p or 1280x720 resolution

That is still considered high definition...
Click to expand...

Funny really, the 30" 2560x1600 model is basically like 4x 1280x800 monitors stacked in a 2x2 grid :D
 
When I was in High School, I drooled over the high-resolution SVGA games (640x480, 256 colors). Four times the resolution of old 320x200 VGA games just impressed the hell out of me. I steadily upgraded, from 800x600 to 1024x768, and finally to a 19" CRT, which I run at 1280x1024.

Even at work, the screen sizes have remained fixed at 20" 1600x1200 panels for several years. And sure, we have many workstations with two of these panels, but that's really it so far as usability goes: a third or fourth monitor would just be wasted space. The push for more resolution just isn't there, not unless you work with graphics, or with stocks.

I actually find 1280x1024 very comfortable...with the addition of my HD 4850 plus 8xAA, I see almost no lines, and get fluid frame rates. Resolution and screen size increases just aren't as important to me as they used to be; what I have now is "good enough."
 
JimmiG said:
Well there's a difference between "High Definition", a term used mostly to describe consoles and TVs, and "High Resolution", used mostly to describe video cards and computer monitors. With a computer monitor, you're (usually) sitting very close to the screen, where as movies and console games are enjoyed from a couch, bed etc. several meters from the screen. This means the requirements are completely different and you're comparing apples to oranges.

I'ved used 1024x768 (nearly 720p) ever since the Voodoo3 nearly ten years ago. When I got the original Radeon 64MB a little later, I switched to 1152x864 (slightly faster than 12x10 and more natural aspect ratio) and then 12x10 when I got a 19" display in 2003. Noone called that "High Definition", because the term wasn't coined yet. We just said that the new cards allowed for "high resolution" gaming. High Definition is just a buzzword invented by the HDTV and gaming console industry because it's easier for people to understand the word "Definition" than "Resolution". "High Definition" on the PC has been around for over 10 years.
Click to expand...


This is not comparing apples to oranges, in both cases we are discussing the resolution of a monitor or television.. the idea of high definition and high resolution is simplymy attempt to set a boundary for the idea of high resolution gaming; and there is no way to compare the idea of sitting distance to the resolution of the said display.. I for one sit the same distance from my 1080p screen and my 30 inch dell monitor for gaming, as i did with my 1600x1200 monitor before it...the idea of high resolution is going to vary from person to person as with sitting distance and monitor resolution
 
What I still don't understand is why I have Blu-Rays that look stunning at 1080p, then games at 1200p that look only half as good (on a 1900x1200 monitor). The resolution isn't a big factor, but the overall picture is.

I still consider 1080p+ to be high def, not that it ensures a good looking picture.

One particular "oh wow" moment was playing Crysis at 1080 on my 40", then plugging in Lost (BD Season 3) and just marveling at how much more crisp and "real" the BD was, in fairly similar jungle environments. There was no comparison in terms of clarity and sharpness, even though both were technically running at the same resolution. There's something much more to the image than mere pixel count.
 
but you cant compare a game to a movie/tv show in terms of quality...... of course real stuff will look better then rendered stuff %100 of the time.
 
i play 1920x1080 but it's a pretty standard res to me. i still consider it high rez, but only because 16/10 is pretty much the norm these days. 25x16 will be the only high rez soon enough
 
Really I don't really care too much. I watch video all the time in 480p and it looks fine and play games at 1680x1050 on a 20" Widescreen LCD.

Honestly the only reason I went from 1280x1024 to 1680x1050 was for the widescreen movies and games. The higher contrast ratio and better colors are just a bonus.
 
How about a more pragmatic definition sense some people take this too seriously.

High resolution on a computer monitor can be defined as the resolution that the most mid range cards fail to provide acceptable game play as defined by being able use 75% or better of the graphics options smoothly.

For instance Bioshock was quite playable but still choppy with my 8800GTX. smooth as silk on my GTX280. mid range card was not quite enough at 1920 by 1200. newer games are worse and require a better graphics card. so for me high resolution started at 1920 by 1200.
 
wildfire99 said:
What I still don't understand is why I have Blu-Rays that look stunning at 1080p, then games at 1200p that look only half as good (on a 1900x1200 monitor). The resolution isn't a big factor, but the overall picture is.

I still consider 1080p+ to be high def, not that it ensures a good looking picture.

One particular "oh wow" moment was playing Crysis at 1080 on my 40", then plugging in Lost (BD Season 3) and just marveling at how much more crisp and "real" the BD was, in fairly similar jungle environments. There was no comparison in terms of clarity and sharpness, even though both were technically running at the same resolution. There's something much more to the image than mere pixel count.
Click to expand...

An in game object with 400x300 res texture is going to come out as 400x300 on the screen. One of the reason games these days are so big is due to those large textures. But even then it's not enough to be anywhere close to what the eye can perceive.
 
Well I consider 1650 x 1080 high resolution. I was really annoyed with all the hype with consoles about being HD or 1080p and games can barely even get out 720p. My current res is 1900 x 1200 but I hope to one day get a 30 inch with higher resolution when the prices come down.
 
i'm a bit old, but I consider anything above 1280x1024 to be "high resolution". Sure, I enjoy larger (I have a 5040x1050 rig at home) displays, but I think of myself as being far above the cure in that regard.
 
Hypernova said:
An in game object with 400x300 res texture is going to come out as 400x300 on the screen. One of the reason games these days are so big is due to those large textures. But even then it's not enough to be anywhere close to what the eye can perceive.
Click to expand...

My point really was that, regardless of the resolution you play at, you're always going to be hampered/hindered by the lowest common denominator on screen. That thus far appears to be texturing as you wisely mention (id's supertexturing aside since it has yet to prove itself), followed closely by crude object geometry.

I can play Crysis at 1920x1080 or even 2560x1600 and it's never going to look anything like reality at half the res. That's what bugs me most about high res gaming and the graphical horsepower required to run it. Even if the pixels are tiny the image still sucks too much of the time.

I saw all the screenshots of Mass Effect and thought they looked amazing. When I fired it up on my own rig at 1920x1080... well it didn't look any different from last year's games or the games from the year before that, aside from some respectable art department work on general textures.

Since I had performance problems on my 8800GT, I switched back and forth between 720p and 1080p. I couldn't tell the difference.

I don't really have a point to what I'm saying, other than after decades of PC gaming (wow, am I that old already) I still haven't had any epiphanic moments where a game (the REAL game, not screenshots or pre-rendered demos) crossed that line into "damn, this looks real." I'd rather concentrate on higher quality over higher resolution. I'm probably going blind at my age but I'd rather have a good IQ game at x768 than one with crap texturing at x1200.
 
wildfire99 said:
My point really was that...
Click to expand...
Well said and very much my sentiments as well. To me, the higher resolutions don't add anything to the experience, and that's why I stay at 1680x1050. Although I must admit, when I played Crysis on Very High for the first time, and ran through the forest with the light through the trees casting shadows, I did say "holy s***!" :p
 
I agree with most in saying that 1080p and above is true "high" res gaming. I must disagree with other saying that the resolution doesnt add realism to the game. I run 2 8800GT's in SLI because you need more power to run resolutions equal or greater than 1920x1080/1200.

Mass Effect at 1080p is AMAZING, and toning down the resolution is going to make a difference.
 
edifyingkarma said:
I agree with most in saying that 1080p and above is true "high" res gaming. I must disagree with other saying that the resolution doesnt add realism to the game. I run 2 8800GT's in SLI because you need more power to run resolutions equal or greater than 1920x1080/1200.

Mass Effect at 1080p is AMAZING, and toning down the resolution is going to make a difference.
Click to expand...
On the same monitor, probably because splitting the cells is going to make it look like hell. On a native 1680x1050 monitor, not enough for me.
 
Anything above 1280x1024 and 1440x900, I consider high resolution.

I run 19x12 now on a 24" monitor.. The amount of real estate is nice, but coming from a 1440x900 monitor and a 8800gt, my 8800 doesn't feel up to par anymore. I miss the smoothness of the lower resolution, but gaming on a bigger screen on a higher res does look nicer.
 
High resolution means little to me when it comes to gaming. By and large there isn't a great deal of variation in pixel pitch among desktop TFT's (19-inchers are the worst), so as long as it's running at native res I'm fairly happy. Ideally I'd opt for 2048x1536 on a quality CRT (a 22" has a usable display area which is slightly smaller than a 19" TFT panel) - it's high res, but more importantly the pixels are tiny. I'm often tempted to get a nice 22" FD Trinitron so I can game at 16x12 with vsync enabled at 120Hz (and run older games without horrid downscaling), but then I recall their massive footprint/weight and how overburdened my desk is already :p
Within the confines of resolution alone I'd vote for 2560x1600 as that suggests a 30" WS and those things are sweet :D
 
FinalAura said:
Anything above 1280x1024 and 1440x900, I consider high resolution.

I run 19x12 now on a 24" monitor.. The amount of real estate is nice, but coming from a 1440x900 monitor and a 8800gt, my 8800 doesn't feel up to par anymore. I miss the smoothness of the lower resolution, but gaming on a bigger screen on a higher res does look nicer.
Click to expand...

I did the same (except I got the 28") and my fancy smancy 8800GTX just could not make any of the newer games feel smooth. A GTX280 solved that problem.
 
Well for me it's 1360x768, simply because it's my TV's native resolution. But I would probably say otherwise, 19x12
 
rincewind said:
High resolution means little to me when it comes to gaming. By and large there isn't a great deal of variation in pixel pitch among desktop TFT's (19-inchers are the worst), so as long as it's running at native res I'm fairly happy. Ideally I'd opt for 2048x1536 on a quality CRT (a 22" has a usable display area which is slightly smaller than a 19" TFT panel) - it's high res, but more importantly the pixels are tiny. I'm often tempted to get a nice 22" FD Trinitron so I can game at 16x12 with vsync enabled at 120Hz (and run older games without horrid downscaling), but then I recall their massive footprint/weight and how overburdened my desk is already :p
Within the confines of resolution alone I'd vote for 2560x1600 as that suggests a 30" WS and those things are sweet :D
Click to expand...

I actually have an old Iiyama CRT which does 2048x1536 over 19", best dot pitch monitor I have ever used, quite amazing really, doesn't really need AA at all, it's so sharp.
 
yes, you can, you can see a ton of jaggies at any res. my point was that AA doesn't have anything to do with resolution but obviously the poster would rather have 19x12 with AA than a super high res without and understandably so.
 
I don't need insanely high AA but I like to run 4x anytime I can help it. it makes a noticeable difference to me.
 
Oh and same goes for AF as well but worse. Have you had your eye's checked recently?

That is a serious question.
 
1900 by 1200 is norm... anything higher is "hi res" heh

though I don't mind gaming on my 1080 37 inch...
 
I consider 16x10/12 and above to be high definition.

1280x1024/720 is what 17/19" monitors come in, and that's pretty mainstream/standard at this point.
 
I played on a 1400x900 for two years, recently switched 1920x1200 gateway. The difference between the two is a bigger image with more detail. You would have to compare these resolutions at the same size. 12x10 on a 19" vs a 16x12 on a 19". You will see a big difference in the quality of detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top